DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “the four-water slurry” and should recite “the flour-water slurry”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu EP 0898901A1.
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method of manufacturing a soluble flour comprising
i. preparing a flour-water slurry ([0018], [0016]);
ii. adjusting the pH of the slurry to a pH ranging from 3.5-6.0 ([0019]);
iii. adding an enzyme to the pH adjusted slurry in an amount ranging from 0.2-0.6 % enzyme relative to weight of the flour to form a reaction mixture ([0016]);
iv. cooking the reaction mixture at a temperature, until a dextrose equivalent of 5 to 18 is achieved ([0020]);
v. inactivating the enzyme to obtain an initial soluble flour ([0022]);
and vi. adjusting the pH of the initial soluble flour to range from about 5 to about 7.5, overlapping the claimed range to form the soluble flour ([0023]).
Claim 1 differs from Xu in the recitation that the temperature during cooking ranges from 85°C to 140°C, however Xu discloses varying the temperature in order to provide effective enzyme hydrolysis ([0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the temperature including to values presently claimed based on the desired enzyme hydrolysis (MPEP 2144.05.II)
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses that step (ii) comprises adjusting the pH of the slurry to a pH ranging from 4.8-5.2 ([0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses that the slurry has a solids levels of about 10% to about 40% ([0018]), therefore suggesting that the slurry can comprise 20-40wt% flour.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 differs from Xu in the recitation that the temperature during cooking ranges from 90°C to 100°C, however Xu discloses varying the temperature in order to provide effective enzyme hydrolysis ([0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the temperature including to values presently claimed based on the desired enzyme hydrolysis (MPEP 2144.05.II)
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses spray drying the soluble flour following step (vi) ([0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses that flour in the flour-water slurry is a non-grain flour ([0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses that flour in the flour-water slurry is a root or tuber flour ([0015])
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses the non-grain flour is potato, arrowroot ([0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses the flour in the flour water slurry is rice ([0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses that the enzyme is alpha-amylase ([0016]).
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses that the soluble flour has a dextrose equivalent of 8-12 ([0020]).
Regarding claims 15-20, Xu teaches the same flour is processed in the same manner as Applicant. Therefore, it is expected that the soluble flour (enzymatically treated flour) of Xu would also have the same properties as the claimed soluble flour. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01.I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu EP 0898901A1 in view of Jones US 2018/0079831.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 differs from Xu in the recitation that Xu teaches the specific amount of enzyme claimed, however it is noted that Xu discloses that the flour can be enzymatically hydrolyzed by alpha amylase using techniques known in the art ([0016]) and it is noted that Jones discloses hydrolyzing flour and that suitably the concentration of enzyme is in the range from about 0.01% to about 0.5% w/w relative to flour, for example from about 0.025% to 0.5% w/w relative to flour, or from about 0.05% to about 0.5% w/w relative to the flour, more suitably the concentration of enzyme is in the range about 0.075% to about 0.5% w/w relative to flour, for example about 0.1% w/w relative to flour. In this embodiment, a particularly useful enzyme is an α-amylase ([0021], [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu such that the enzyme is added in the amount claimed, it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu EP 0898901A1 in view of Von Fulger et al. US 4,663,168.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 differ from Xu in the recitation that the reaction mixture cooking takes place in a jet cooker.
Von Fulger discloses that it was known to carry out enzymatic hydrolysis reactions utilizing a jet cooker (col. 3, lines 1-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Xu such that the reaction mixture cooking takes place in a jet cooker as taught by Von Fulger, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize known equipment for performing a similar process, it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses that the enzyme is alpha-amylase ([0016]), but does not specifically recite that the alpha amylase is a thermostable alpha-amylase.
Von Fulger teaches that thermally stable alpha amylase was known to be utilized for enzymatic hydrolysis, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select to modify the alpha amylase of Xu to be a known thermally alpha-amylase as taught by Von Fulger, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments have been considered, however given that Xu discloses the use of high amylose varieties ([0015]), and does not recite specific gelatinization temperatures which should be avoided, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that suitable temperatures encompassed by the process of Xu include those which would be below the gelatinization temperature for high amylose varieties. It is noted that for example, Van Patten US 3751268 discloses that high amylose starches usually gelatinize at a temperature from about 190 °F to about 198 °F (87.7°C to 92.2 °C), therefore suitable temperatures encompassed by the disclosure of Xu would include temperatures below about 87.7°C to 92.2 °C.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights